Inertial Impulse Drive - "impossible" they said

[etherflow]

main flywheel and half-flywheel mass counterrotate at the same rpm. thus, half-flywheel mass travels an eliptical path always facing the same direction. since it travels close to the axis first half of the cycle and close to the rim another half of the cycle, there is a differential of inertial moment, thus, BY THE LAW, a unidirectional net force is produced. flywheels are kept in phase by the timing pulley.



the aim is to further understand the phenomena and to consider the implications. please comment.

[sprocket]

main flywheel and half-flywheel mass counterrotate at the same rpm. thus, half-flywheel mass travels an eliptical path always facing the same direction. since it travels close to the axis first half of the cycle and close to the rim another half of the cycle, there is a differential of inertial moment, thus, BY THE LAW, a unidirectional net force is produced. flywheels are kept in phase by the timing pulley.



the aim is to further understand the phenomena and to consider the implications. please comment.

If true, why have I not come across a Youtube video showing this effect? It would seem reasonably easy to reproduce. Any numbers on how much thrust it could produce - how fast would it need to rotate to 'float'?

Reminded me of this Youtube video I came across regarding CF which I found intriguing.

[etherflow]

why it has not been made/reproduced so far is beyond me. remember that
human stupidity is infinite (i am not refering to members of this forum).

your video is interesting. i'll follow their development. my idea was inspired
by many such devices but mostly by one so called gyradoscope.

i was inspired by it and i found a way to simplify such device down to raw
operating principle and that is the differential of inertial impulse between the
two half cycles. this was the solution.

i expect now it will be fairly easy to make a small device that will levitate
itself and maybe few times it's weight. the rpm will depend on the weight
of the system, weight of the half-flywheel and diameter of the shaft
following the formula for moment of inertia I = mr².

If true, why have I not come across a Youtube video showing this effect? It would seem reasonably easy to reproduce. Any numbers on how much thrust it could produce - how fast would it need to rotate to 'float'?

Reminded me of this Youtube video I came across regarding CF which I found intriguing.

[sprocket]

why it has not been made/reproduced so far is beyond me. remember that
human stupidity is infinite (i am not refering to members of this forum)...

Haha, wait till you've been here a while.

it has certainly piqued my interest. Have you actually tested this? Would doubling the weight of the half-flywheel double the directional-thrust as well? Outrunner motors would seem ideal for this, compact with lots of power. There's a Youtube video where some Germans used LOTS and LOTS of outrunners to make a 1-man drone that managed to hover a couple of meters off the ground. I'm thinking that a fraction of those motors would be required to lift a man if this worked! A couple of more for horizantal thrust and your off to the moon!!! Weeeee.....

[etherflow]

ddn't test it YET.

outrunner sounds like it would do the job.

imagine a horizontal line through the axis of the big wheel. you see
how it divides the path of the half flywheel's center of mass. you see
that the path above the axis is almost double the path below. that is
the ratio that determines the net force.

according to I = mr². doubling the weight will double the net force.

Haha, wait till you've been here a while.

it has certainly piqued my interest. Have you actually tested this? Would doubling the weight of the half-flywheel double the directional-thrust as well? Outrunner motors would seem ideal for this, compact with lots of power. There's a Youtube video where some Germans used LOTS and LOTS of outrunners to make a 1-man drone that managed to hover a couple of meters off the ground. I'm thinking that a fraction of those motors would be required to lift a man if this worked! A couple of more for horizantal thrust and your off to the moon!!! Weeeee.....

[Ernst]

You are forgetting that when most of the mass is far from the axis, the whole will rotate slower than when it is near to the axis. THAT is "the LAW". Otherwise there would be an increase of energy in the system when the mass is at the far end.
Remember the orbital velocity is wr (w being the angular velocity), then the kinetic energy is mv²/2 becomes mw²r²/2. So when r increases while w remains constant, the kinetic energy increases.
Thus, to keep a constant velocity you must add energy when the mass-centre to axis distance increases, and you must put a break on it when this distance decreases.
This externally REQUIRED force is the force that you thought to get for free....

Nice try though!

Ernst.

[etherflow]

you forgot two half cycles have the same length in time.

it will rotate faster when far from axis. so, w does not

stay the same due to counterrotation of the half-flywheel.

half-flywheel has higher angular velocity when crossings the

longer path in the SAME time, that is, in other half of the cycle

when travelling near the rim. so, due to this geometry, no external

force is needed to gain apparently free energy and a net force.

You are forgetting that when most of the mass is far from the axis, the whole will rotate slower than when it is near to the axis. THAT is "the LAW". Otherwise there would be an increase of energy in the system when the mass is at the far end.
Remember the orbital velocity is wr (w being the angular velocity), then the kinetic energy is mv²/2 becomes mw²r²/2. So when r increases while w remains constant, the kinetic energy increases.
Thus, to keep a constant velocity you must add energy when the mass-centre to axis distance increases, and you must put a break on it when this distance decreases.
This externally REQUIRED force is the force that you thought to get for free....

Nice try though!

Ernst.

[etherflow]

the big wheel will actually be a shaft

[wayne.ct]

Theory vs. Fact

Hey, I'm all for coming up with nice theories but the proof is in the doing. There are plenty of ideas and theories here and plenty of people wanting other people to do stuff based on their ideas. It won't happen. The people doing stuff here are doing stuff based on what other people have actually done and can be duplicated. If you are not able to join in the effort to actually do something you will not get much love from this forum. Keep reading and viewing because there there are examples of all this to be found on this forum. But, you will not gain understanding by reading comments. You will need to do it and see for yourself that it works. So, the main question is this: Are you willing to put your credibility on the line and set forth your claim? 1. Have you built it? 2. Did it work? 3. What is your criterion that tells you you have a working device that functions outside of conventional accepted science?

Start there or risk being viewed as just another useless troll.

[etherflow]

who said i am looking for someone to build it?

all you contributed to the thread are false accusations.

talking about a "useless troll".

Hey, I'm all for coming up with nice theories but the proof is in the doing. There are plenty of ideas and theories here and plenty of people wanting other people to do stuff based on their ideas. It won't happen. The people doing stuff here are doing stuff based on what other people have actually done and can be duplicated. If you are not able to join in the effort to actually do something you will not get much love from this forum. Keep reading and viewing because there there are examples of all this to be found on this forum. But, you will not gain understanding by reading comments. You will need to do it and see for yourself that it works. So, the main question is this: Are you willing to put your credibility on the line and set forth your claim? 1. Have you built it? 2. Did it work? 3. What is your criterion that tells you you have a working device that functions outside of conventional accepted science?

Start there or risk being viewed as just another useless troll.

[myenergetic]

Inertial Propulsion Engine

High there

Nice thread IMHO it is always better to start where others ended.

Please read the following link Robert Cook and his Patents

Robert Cook: Inertial Propulsion Engine ~ US Patent # 4238968 ~ USP # 3683707
Robert L. COOK Inertial Propulsion Engine

CIP Principle

Hope it helps

JJ

[etherflow]

thnx. i know of cook and CIP. if you would

sketch cooks device down to it's most basic

operating principle, how would it look like?

High there

Nice thread IMHO it is always better to start where others ended.

Please read the following link Robert Cook and his Patents

Robert Cook: Inertial Propulsion Engine ~ US Patent # 4238968 ~ USP # 3683707
Robert L. COOK Inertial Propulsion Engine

CIP Principle

Hope it helps

JJ

[sprocket]

High there

Nice thread IMHO it is always better to start where others ended.

Please read the following link Robert Cook and his Patents

Robert Cook: Inertial Propulsion Engine ~ US Patent # 4238968 ~ USP # 3683707
Robert L. COOK Inertial Propulsion Engine

CIP Principle

Hope it helps

JJ

Wow, something else I was not aware of, thanks for posting this.

This has been verified by many, not to mention a couple of professors;

Endorsements ~

All scientists and engineers (except for2) have endorsed the CIP principle after seeing the model.

Prof. Ching Fong (former chairman of the Physics Dept, UC Davis, and Prof. Of Solid State Physics) has analyzed the system and estimates the energy efficiency potential at 53% and a propulsion efficiency of 98%.

Prof. Durward Jackson of California State University at Los Angeles declares the system "One of the 10 greatest inventions in history".
Countless numbers of engineers have declared it the greatest invention in history!

- so why the fcuk are we still being fed the line about it being impossible?!?!?

[etherflow]

..........

[sprocket]

the big wheel will actually be a shaft

Etherflow, if this works as you think, what percentage of a single 360 degree rotation should the device experience a 'forward' thrust? I presume the math can tell you that. I'm thinking about the CIP, if it really has a 98% propulsion efficiency, that would mean that nearly all of the rotational energy is being converted into forward momentum. Or does your idea only work in 'pulsed-mode', where during only a percentage of a 360 degrees would the device experience a forward momentum? Of course if that was the case, wouldn't action/reaction come into play? Fascinating nevertheless, especially since reading about the CIP.